Catalyst Castle

This is part 2 of a discussion I began last month. The object of this discussion is to help myself and those I role-play with get more out of our games.

In part 1 I talked about something called the GNS theory devised by a man named Ron Edwards. If you haven’t already, or need a refresher, you can read part 1 here. The basic gist of the article was that most people tend to gravitate towards one of 3 preferences for play, those being Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism.

I hope each of us will be able to get a better idea of what we enjoy about roleplaying, and what our friends enjoy about it. Once we know this, it can help in 2 ways. First, Game Masters will be able to better facilitate the kind of play that their players enjoy. Second, I hope it will encourage tolerance of other play styles. For example, if I enjoy Simulationism but the game is leaning heavily towards Gamism at the moment, at least I know that some of my friends enjoy that; and, hopefully, since the Game Master knows what I like too, some Sim play will be coming around soon.

Now, after my last article there was some further discussion offline that made me think I need to expound a little bit further on what each of these play styles involves. Ron Edwards wrote 3 more essays, each on one of these gaming agendas. Again, it can be difficult to wade through Ron Edwards essays, which are very wordy and full of jargon. So I’ve taken it upon myself to read through these and try to isolate some key points for you. I’ll start with his essay on Simulationism, since I think it could be the easiest to misunderstand. If you have the interest and the patience, you can read his full essay here. (If you want the really short summary, skip to the last 2 or 3 paragraphs of this article.)


In the beginning of the essay he makes these statements in the introduction, quoting his earlier essay about GNS and clarifying what he means by “Exploration”:

Simulationist role-playing has a great deal of power and potential. In the previous essay, I wrote that it "... is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color]; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration."

Obviously the thing to do is to get as clear an understanding of "Exploration" as possible. It's our jargon term for imagining, "dreaming" if you will, about made-up characters in made-up situations. It's central to all role-playing, but in Simulationist play, it's the top priority.

So, Simulationist play is very much about immersing yourself in a “virtual world”, if you will. It’s about fleshing out an imaginary character and a fictional world in a meaningful way. Edwards makes this observation:

Simulationist play looks awfully strange to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during play.

“Metagaming” is basically shorthand for treating roleplaying as a game. Metagaming is essential in Gamism, where players discuss strategies out-of-character and create characters that are optimized for success. Metagaming is also essential in Narrativism, where players make a concerted effort to produce a story of critical merit. In Simulationism, metagaming is undesirable because it draws players out of the immersion in the characters and setting. Edwards expounds on this through these statements:

The key issues are shared love of the source material and sincerity. […] it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you are imagining, and vice versa. […] To the dedicated practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in heavy-metagame play […] Sincere shared creativity: all role-playing has to have it. For some, it's the whole point.

However, Edwards goes on to admit that metagaming cannot be completely avoided. Metagame discussion is appropriate if its aim is to further the exploration of the “virtual” characters and world, rather than to further a player agenda such as “winning” (Gamism) or storytelling (Narrativism).

Switching gears, Edwards next makes some specific observations about the contrasts between Simulationist play and Narrativist play. He uses the example of playing a samurai character, or any character with a similarly strict code of behavior, in two different games: Sorcerer (Narrativist) and GURPS (Simulationist). Basically, the point he makes is that in a Narrativist game, the purpose of playing such a character would be to tell a story in which your character will, sooner-or-later, be forced to break their code of conduct or somehow suffer for refusing to do so. What choice they make, and the consequences of that choice, are what create a story of critical merit. In a Simulationist game, the purpose of playing such a character would be that the code itself establishes, to some extent, your character’s role in the setting and the story.

He also points out that enjoying a particular thematic element of the game doesn’t necessarily constitute Narrativism over Simulationism, if it evolves naturally through play rather than being proactively developed.

For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality: the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda.

Ron Edwards ends his essay with this “hard question” about Simulationism:

Role-playing is a hobby, leisure activity. The real question is, what for, in the long term? For Simulationist play, the answer "This was fun, so let's do it again," is sufficient.

However, for how long is it sufficient? Which seems to me to vary greatly from person to person. Is the focus on Exploration to be kept as is, permanently, as characters and settings change through play? Some say "sure" and wonder what the [heck] I'm talking about, or perhaps feel slightly insulted. Or, is [a shift in agenda] ultimately desirable? Is play all about getting "it" to work prior to permitting overt metagame agendas into the picture? Some might answer "of course" and wonder why anyone could see it otherwise.

So! Is there an expected, future metagame payoff, or is the journey really its own reward? Is Simulationist play what you want, or is it what you think you must do in order, one day, to get what you want?

I judge nothing with these questions. I think that they're important to consider and that answers are going to vary widely, that's all.

So, in summary, here’s what I got out of Ron Edwards’ essay:

Simulationist play is about diving headlong into a “virtual” character and world, and having fun exploring those without concern for “winning” or telling a story with any special theme or moral. If your characters do manage to get ahead it’s only because that’s what they would naturally try to do in the setting, and if an incredible story does end up getting told it happens naturally and organically, not because anyone planned it that way. While this kind of play might seem a bit aimless, it possesses a certain daydream-like quality that allows the players to just run with the characters and the setting without any concern for overt metagaming agendas.

Honestly, I think I have the most experience with Simulationist gaming over any other style of roleplaying. Most mainstream RPGs seem to focus on this mode of play. I’d probably say I enjoy this mode of play a lot, though I don’t mind dabbling in the other 2 modes either. I especially wouldn’t mind trying out some more Narrativist games because I haven’t done much of that, and I think there could be some good potential for fun there.